Ruling In Maryland’s “Assault Weapons” Case Could Gut Gun Control Nationwide


PLEASE GOD! Let this moron be the one that knocks on my door!
The "cold dead hands" you speak of will be your own.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Don't you see, there will be no door-to-door serch.

There will be a mandatory buy-back, followed by a general ban. The clincher is anyone who knows you have a banned item will be charged too.

And it's true that not every hypothetically illegal firearm can be removed from the civilian population, but 1) you can never again use one in otherwise lawful self defense, and 2) there will be too few to effect any real threat to the government.

If you sit around waiting for someone to come knock on your door, you're effectively letting the ban happen.
 

Don't you see, there will be no door-to-door serch.

There will be a mandatory buy-back, followed by a general ban. The clincher is anyone who knows you have a banned item will be charged too.

And it's true that not every hypothetically illegal firearm can be removed from the civilian population, but 1) you can never again use one in otherwise lawful self defense, and 2) there will be too few to effect any real threat to the government.

If you sit around waiting for someone to come knock on your door, you're effectively letting the ban happen.

Nobody is taking my arms while I live.
Period.

We need to keep this in mind as our “representatives” try to push gun bans. I don’t care if 99% of people are in support of gun bans (which is far from the case), it is a violation of our constitutional rights, plain and simple.

A constitutional republic protects the rights of the individual even when their ideas are very much in the minority. If I were the only person in America who believed in the 2nd amendment, I would still be within my rights to call upon it. You would all think I was insane and possibly celebrate if I was gunned down, but in the end I would be the only true American among us.

Our framers were very clear on this. If my government comes to take my guns, they are violating one of my constitutional rights that is covered by the 2nd amendment.

It is not my right, at that point, but my responsibility to respond in the name of liberty. What I am telling you is something that many are trying to soft sell, and many others have tried to avoid putting into print, but I am going to say it. The time for speaking in code is over.

If they come for our guns then it is our constitutional right to put them six feet under. You have the right to kill any representative of this government who tries to tread on your liberty. I am thinking about self-defense and not talking about inciting a revolution. Re-read Jefferson ’s quote. He talks about a “last resort.” I am not trying to start a Revolt, I am talking about self-defense. If the day for Revolution comes, when no peaceful options exist, we may have to talk about that as well. None of us wants to think about that, but please understand that a majority can not take away your rights as an American citizen. Only you can choose to give up your rights.



Link Removed

MOLON LABE


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
From David Codrea, writing for Oath Keepers:







Imagine the case being made in 1775 that this man had no right to his gun, and it was in the interests or public safety to take it from him– in other words, Gen. Gage’s position. Now imagine some Tory arguing such a gun was not in common use at the time. These lying arguments are exactly what modern gun-grabbers claim about today’s militia-suitable arms, and our right to keep and bear them.




Rather than send the Maryland firearm and magazine ban case back down to a lower court as ordered by a three-judge panel last month, a majority of the Richmond-based 4[SUP]th[/SUP] Circuit Court of Appeals voted to rehear the case in May, Link Removed. Maryland’s edict “bans the possession or sale of more than 45 types of assault weapons.”

The lawsuit challenging Maryland’s ban, enacted by “we must do something” opportunists following Sandy Hook, resulted in what attorney Andrew Branca called a “Big #2A Win,” in that the panel applied “strict scrutiny,” a standard of legal review requiring a “law must advance not merely any governmental interest, but in particular a compelling governmental interest [and] the law must also be narrowly tailored to actually achieve that interest.”

That’s a much higher bar to meet than “intermediate scrutiny,” which pretty much allows a government to get away with whatever it wants with an unproven “public safety” claim. Under strict scrutiny, Branca noted, “the vast majority of gun laws currently on the books would inescapably be found to be unconstitutional infringements of the Second Amendment, and discarded.”

We reviewed the case last month, noting that positive news aside, a danger still exists until such time as another standard applied to “legality” of weapons – “in common use at the time” – is irrevocably recognized as meaning what a militia would need to fulfill its function:

The function of the militia, defined as “all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense [and] bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time,” was — and is — to field citizen soldiers. And these citizens must bear arms that are suitable for that purpose, “ordinary military equipment” intended to be taken into “common defense” battles.


Last month’s panel dissenter had no problem twisting his “reasoning” to assert that denying semi-autos to We the People was perfectly consistent with “shall not be infringed.” That’s the kind of double-talk we’d expect from a Clinton appointee. But what about the rest of the court?

See for yourself.

The Chief Judge is a Clinton man. Plenty of the others were Obama nominees. And just because some were seated by Republicans hasn’t always Link Removed, especially keeping Carroll Quigley’s admission in mind:

“The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy.”

Who thinks the elites want the “rabble” to be able to say “No” and back it up?

What happens from here is, at best, uncertain. Pessimistically, I expect the court to look out for the interests of the state — they must realize what Branca observed about all “gun control” edicts being vulnerable. I also expect the “precedent” to be applied in other districts.

Either way, expect an appeal. And then, as always, all the Supreme Court has to do to let a bad law stand is… nothing. Assuming the ban is upheld, if they don’t hear the case, that decision will stand. If they do take it on, we’re dealing with Link Removed, and that’s best case scenario, assuming John Roberts doesn’t side with Obama and the Democrats again. And who knows how soon we’ll be back to a nine judge court – or who will be picked to replace Scalia?

No one has a crystal ball. That said, prepare for the worst. Especially if the Republicans manage to alienate enough of their base to put Hillary in the Oval Office, assuming she has enough dirt on all the key players to keep from ending up behind bars.


It almost tasted like hope over the last couple of weeks, but it was just another usurpation in the making. VERY doubtful in my estimation that the original 3-judge panel's ruling in Kolbe will ever see the light of day again, and even if it does, with only either Obama, Billary or Trump to count on to pick a replacement for Scalia, Kolbe has already all but crashed and burned.

Oh well.

Blues



 
I see where Maryland's Eastern Shore US House of Representative Andy Harris has signed on to HR. 923 Conceal Carry Reciprocity Resolution, along with 2 others bringing the total co-sponsors to 58 on the bill. Kudo's to Andy!!!
 
I see where Maryland's Eastern Shore US House of Representative Andy Harris has signed on to HR. 923 Conceal Carry Reciprocity Resolution, along with 2 others bringing the total co-sponsors to 58 on the bill. Kudo's to Andy!!!

Good grief. This thread is about a case that has the potential to strengthen the Second Amendment on Second Amendment grounds only, while you butt in to shill for adding 2A issues to the endless list of constitutional usurpations via the Commerce Clause!

Why did you post that crap here? Start a new thread if you want to lick the scrota of Commerce Clause cowboys whose only avenue of supposedly upholding the Constitution is to further usurp it!

Blues
 
Yo momma needs to wash yo mouth out with soap, or maybe it should be Luke McCoy.

You are trolling another thread that has absolutely nothing to do with reciprocity. You are shilling for multiple bills that have absolutely nothing to do with the Second Amendment and everything to do with further weakening it in favor of further strengthening the Commerce Clause in ways the Founders never contemplated it being used.

It's obviously the light of truth that I shone on your trolling this thread that is so offensive to you, because you still won't answer to the truthful point I'm making sans any offensive language. If you address it at all, you'll call me "paranoid" or an "anarchist" or some other lie to avoid actually answering to the point that you're a troll and a shill for big-government infringements imposed on The People based on the Commerce Clause, and couldn't care any less about true Second Amendment advocacy or adherence.

Blues
 
You are trolling another thread that has absolutely nothing to do with reciprocity. You are shilling for multiple bills that have absolutely nothing to do with the Second Amendment and everything to do with further weakening it in favor of further strengthening the Commerce Clause in ways the Founders never contemplated it being used.

It's obviously the light of truth that I shone on your trolling this thread that is so offensive to you, because you still won't answer to the truthful point I'm making sans any offensive language. If you address it at all, you'll call me "paranoid" or an "anarchist" or some other lie to avoid actually answering to the point that you're a troll and a shill for big-government infringements imposed on The People based on the Commerce Clause, and couldn't care any less about true Second Amendment advocacy or adherence.

Blues
Why don't you just gather up a squad of your 'cold dead hands' and go deal with it?

This is the tyranny you speak of. Where's your revolt?
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,526
Messages
610,760
Members
74,962
Latest member
troydistro
Back
Top